There is a reason why after all this time so many books and articles on Plato are being published every year. — Fooloso4

There are many books and articles published every year on all kinds of topics. But they are not claiming or showing that Plato was an atheist.

And it is incorrect to claim that Socrates was convicted of "atheism" when the charge was "introducing new deities".

Monistic idealism is not the same as "atheism". On the contrary, it elevates God from highest authority to Ultimate Reality.

You do not follow the argument where it leads, you ignore the argument because you assume where it leads. — Fooloso4

I think the reverse is true. It is you who is not following the argument and is starting from the unexamined premise that Plato preaches atheism which is totally unsupported by the evidence as yourself have admitted.

Here is your own statement.

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4

You have admittedly failed to prove your theory but still keep claiming that you have proved it. And that, without any evidence whatsoever!

And it is incorrect to claim that Socrates was convicted of "atheism" when the charge was "introducing new deities". — Apollodorus

Again, you do not understand what the term meant.

Monistic idealism — Apollodorus

Repeat the incantations over and over again.

I think the reverse is true. It is you who is not following the argument — Apollodorus

I have two threads that follow the arguments from the beginning to the end of the dialogue and a third which follows critical arguments in the Republic. It is all right that for all to see, except those who close their eyes and sing incantations.

You have admittedly failed to prove your theory ... — Apollodorus

I have no theory to prove. I simply follow the arguments where they lead. You mistake single statements taken out of context for arguments and fail to follow the argument. Each time I point to the argument you look away, repeat what you believe, and bring up those views that influenced your beliefs.

Each time I point to the argument you look away, — Fooloso4

What "argument"? I see nothing but persistent diversion and evasion:

1. You have "nothing to prove".

2. You have "no theory".

3. You are "following the arguments".

4. Others are "not following the arguments".

5. And when you are asked what your argument actually is, you say it's a "secret" because the author "has something to hide". But, at the same time, it's "all there for all to see"!

Are you well? Or are you taking us for a ride?

What "argument"? — Apollodorus

If I did not know better I would think you are kidding. The arguments given in the dialogues. Have you really not understood this?

When you ask "what argument" you make it clear that you have not been following the arguments because you don't even know what they are or where they are.

If I did not know better I would think you are kidding. The arguments given in the dialogues. — Fooloso4

I see. So, you are not talking about your arguments but about the arguments "in the dialogues". Great. In that case, allow me to ask again:

In your opinion, what exactly do the arguments in the dialogues lead to? Atheism? Buddhism? Marxism? Nihilism? Or something else?

This is an example of Socrates advise to chant incantations over and over again. — Fooloso4

You seem to have some kind of fixation with "chanting incantations". You believe that Socrates' expression is the only thing Plato has to say.

Anyone who has read the literature knows that "the accepted scholarly position" does not exist. — Fooloso4

And yet you are telling us that there is an accepted scholarly position which is that Plato was an atheist. This is untrue. The consensus as shown by mainstream sources like Wikipedia is that Plato taught monistic idealism.

Each time I point to the argument you look away, repeat what you believe, and bring up those views that influenced your beliefs. — Fooloso4

My beliefs about Plato are influenced by the works of Plato and his Platonist followers. Who would you like me to read instead? The anti-Platonists?

It is all right that for all to see, except those who close their eyes and sing incantations. — Fooloso4

So, we are back to square one then. If it is "there for all to see", why don't you tell us in plain English what it is?

PS I didn't notice your comment below on the other thread:

The dialogues are informed by Socrates knowledge of his ignorance, and no matter where the arguments go they always return to this ... The fact that Plato never says anything in the dialogues is in this respect significant. — Fooloso4

So what you are saying is this:

1. Plato never says anything.

2. The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing.

If Plato says nothing and Socrates says he knows nothing, then on what basis do you claim to know that Plato doesn't teach monistic idealism?

You pull statements out of context and think they represent the "true teaching". — Fooloso4

Sorry, but that is totally untrue. My exact words were:

Even in antiquity, Plato's teachings were known as τᾰ̀ δόγμᾰτᾰ τοῦ Πλᾰ́τωνος “the (true) doctrine of Plato”, δόγμᾰ dogma being that which one believes to be true, i.e., true doctrine or teaching. — Apollodorus

Plato's teachings or what goes by the name of "Platonism" were referred to as "Plato's true teachings". You are claiming they are not Plato's true teachings, but offer no evidence.

In fact, I don't see what evidence you could possibly have as according to you, "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing".

You cite Leibniz and Warburton as your "evidence" for Plato's teachings even though according to you, "Plato says nothing", etc., etc.

So, you are not talking about your arguments but about the arguments "in the dialogues". — Apollodorus

No, I am talking about the arguments in the dialogues. I have invited you several times to discuss them, but following in the footsteps of Euthyphro have somewhere else to be.

In your opinion, what exactly do the arguments in the dialogues lead to? — Apollodorus

Round and round you go. I have laid it all out. If you are really interested instead of just looking for something to argue about, go back and read the posts where I lay it out.

You seem to have some kind of fixation with "chanting incantations". — Apollodorus

It is a phrase that Socrates uses several times in the Phaedo. You are doing exactly what he recommends to those who are not ready for philosophy and instead like children desire myths and incantations.

The consensus as shown by mainstream sources like Wikipedia is that Plato taught monistic idealism. — Apollodorus

Wiki is not a scholarly source, although it has gotten better and often includes footnotes to sources. What you find on Wiki is not a consensus of mainstream scholarly sources because there is no consensus, and never has been.

Who would you like me to read instead? — Apollodorus

As I have said many times now, read a dialogues from start to finish. Instead of cherry picking statements that confirm what you already believe, follow the arguments, connect the dots, put the pieces together. Do what Plato expects of those who are suited to philosophy THINK. But as I've also said, he writes on different levels. He provides those who desire answers, those who want their opinions made for them, those who are prisoners in the cave, the images they believe are more than images.

So, we are back to square one then. If it is "there for all to see", why don't you tell us in plain English what it is? — Apollodorus

As you go round and round you forget what has already been said. He was not about to suffer the same fate as Socrates or allow philosophy to be silenced by those who, like you, are threatened by philosophy.

Plato never says anything. — Apollodorus

Not in the dialogues.The dialogue form is not just stylistic.

The only thing that Socrates says is that he knows nothing. — Apollodorus

Another example of your unwillingness to discuss things openly and honestly.

If Plato says nothing and Socrates says he knows nothing, then on what basis do you claim to know that Plato doesn't teach monistic idealism? — Apollodorus

I doubt you will understand this, but others here might, and it has been discussed in the literature. It may be preferable for you to believe something like that than the myths of the gods. Those who cannot abide the uncertainty of philosophy will latch on to something. He gives you something to latch onto.

Why to you continue posting the same thing on two different threads? Proselytizing?

You cite Leibniz and Warburton as your "evidence" for Plato's teachings even though according to you, "Plato says nothing", etc., etc. — Apollodorus

Do you really think there is any value in misrepresenting what I say? Neither the quote from Leibniz nor Bishop Warburton said anything about Plato. They are talking about an ancient practice of esoteric writing. It requires in turn a skill in reading tailored to the author.

It's a big world out there beyond the narrow confines of your head.

Wiki is not a scholarly source, although it has gotten better and often includes footnotes to sources. What you find on Wiki is not a consensus of mainstream scholarly sources because there is no consensus, and never has been. — Fooloso4

I never said Wiki is a scholarly source. I said it was mainstream. If you believe that Plato's alleged "atheism" is more then fringe speculation, feel free to provide evidence for that. That's what I've been asking you all this time and all you can think of is Leibniz and Warburton and some obscure anti-Platonist writers.

As I have said many times now, read a dialogues from start to finish. — Fooloso4

That's exactly what I did and I came to totally different conclusions to what you are saying. That's why I asked you what translations you were using and where Socrates says that "the Forms are hypotheses".

Instead of answering, you got upset and called for help. Which I thought was a very strange thing to do.

Of course it proves nothing. It is not about proof. It is about learning how to read an author who has something to hide. — Fooloso4

Let’s recap then:

1. Plato never says anything.

2. Socrates says he knows nothing.

3.The author (presumably Plato) has something to hide.

4. Although “hidden”, it’s “all there for all to see”.

5. But this “doesn’t prove anything”.

6. Anyway, “it isn’t about proof it’s about learning how to read an author who has something to hide”.

7. But you refuse to say what it is that the author is hiding.

8. And yet you insists that you are right and get upset when others ask you a simple question ....

feel free to provide evidence for that. — Apollodorus

Not needed. Anyone who knows the literature knows it.

Although “hidden”, it’s “all there for all to see”. — Apollodorus

Think for a second. Anyone can look at the book. What they see depends on their ability to read and make connections. You have demonstrated your inability to do so.

But you refuse to say what it is that the author is hiding. — Apollodorus

I have said.

And yet you insists that you are right and get upset when others ask you a simple question .... — Apollodorus

Did you type this with a straight face? You are unable to accept that I see things differently than you do and so zealously post over and over and over again. Does it bother you that much that you cannot convert me? Or are you more interested in converting others to your religious beliefs?

Think for a second. Anyone can look at the book. What they see depends on their ability to read and make connections. You have demonstrated your inability to do so. — Fooloso4

By the same token, you have demonstrated your inability to see what I and most people see, which is that Plato's writings teach a form of monistic idealism, not atheism

And since you are unable or unwilling to say what the author is "hiding", you are in no position to claim otherwise.

Indeed, you can't say anything because according to you, "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing".

You haven't even shown that "in the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms". Or anything else for that matter.

But at least you've made me laugh .... :grin:

By the same token, you have demonstrated your inability to see what I and most people see, which is that Plato's writings teach a form of monistic idealism, not atheism — Apollodorus

It is not that I can't see it, I just don't buy it. Do you think there is a chance I might if you repeat it again or again a hundred times?

And since you are unable or unwilling to say what the author is "hiding" — Apollodorus

Once again, I have said. Go back and read.

Indeed, you can't say anything because according to you, "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing". — Apollodorus

Do you really think that such misrepresentation will make your argument stronger? Why can't you accept that there are interpretations other than the one you believe? Interpretations by eminent scholars?

You haven't even shown that "in the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms". — Apollodorus

Did you miss the part where he bans the poets? Or the part where the Good and not the gods are the generative cause of all that is?

Did you miss the part where he bans the poets? Or the part where the Good and not the gods are the generative cause of all that is? — Fooloso4

Sadly, I think this once again shows how fanaticism prevents you from seeing your total lack of logic.

What Plato writes in the dialogues is monistic idealism, not atheism. Don't you understand the concept
of idealism?

It's exactly what Plato describes. The ultimate cause of everything is the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Intellect (Nous). That doesn't "ban the Gods", it only subordinates them to a higher reality which is a logical consequence of philosophical inquiry. In Platonic philosophy, that which philosophizes, viz., consciousness, is the highest reality and cause of everything, as I explained in my post on the Forms.

The city described by Plato in the Republic is just utopian imagery intended to illustrate certain points Plato was trying to make.

There was to be no laughter, no artists, no families, etc. Not a realistic situation at all. The discussion also suggested a society divided into classes and ruled by philosopher-kings.

But Plato doesn’t say there should be no Gods, he only says that human misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Gods should not be allowed.

The issue is not whether there should be any Gods but how people should think and speak about them:

“But this very thing—the patterns or norms of right speech about the Gods (literally, θεολογία theologia) what would they be?” “Something like this,” I said. “The true quality of God we must always surely attribute to him whether we compose in epic, melic, or tragic verse.” “We must.” “And is not God of course good in reality and always to be spoken of as such?” (379a).

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D2%3Asection%3D379a

Think of monistic idealism, and you will see how everything makes sense. Think atheism, and nothing fits.

That's why you are unable to prove your theory and all you can come up with are vague oracular pronouncements like "he says it but he is hiding it", "it's there but you can't see it", and nonsense like that. The "incantations" are yours, not mine.

You may not have read Shorey, but you sound very much like him. Writers in the 1930's were too heavily influenced by Marxism and Fabian Socialism to be capable of objective analysis. Their main objective was to deconstruct tradition to make place for "progress", and that meant attacking Christianity and Platonism. Politics never makes good scholarship.

Sadly, I think this once again shows how fanaticism prevents you from seeing your total lack of logic. — Apollodorus

Sadly, you avoid the question and repeat your incantation.

The ultimate cause of everything is the Universal Consciousness or Cosmic Intellect (Nous). — Apollodorus

Where does he say this and not the Good in the Republic?

That doesn't "ban the Gods — Apollodorus

He bans the poets (397d-398a, see also 377b-c, about supervising the makers of tales, and 379a about appropriate tales). Banning the poets he bans their stories of the gods.

But Plato doesn’t say there should be no Gods, he only says that human misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the Gods should not be allowed. — Apollodorus

In other words, he bans the kind of stories that Euthyphro appeals to to demonstrate his piety and justice. In other words, just the kind of thing for which he was condemned. He purifies the gods, which is to say make up new ones.

“The true quality of God we must always surely attribute to him whether we compose in epic, melic, or tragic verse.” “We must.” “And is not God of course good in reality and always to be spoken of as such?” (379a). — Apollodorus

He is talking about which stories of the gods are appropriate. Socrates does not say that the god is good in reality. He asks a question:

Then is the god really good, and hence, must he be said to be so? (379a)

Adeimantus agrees. Context matters. The context is the stories they will allow in the city.

Think of monistic idealism, and you will see how everything makes sense. — Apollodorus

More to the point, accept the notion of monistic idealism and then force the dialogues to fit the mold.

"he says it but he is hiding it" — Apollodorus

Again, you fail to understand. The reader has to put the pieces together. Reading Plato is not a passive activity.

Writers in the 1930's were too heavily influenced by Marxism and Fabian Socialism to be capable of objective analysis. — Apollodorus

Completely irrelevant. Many of the commentators I read are political philosophers and anti-Marxist.

Their main objective was to deconstruct tradition to make place for "progress" — Apollodorus

This is the opposite of what the authors I read do. They argue that we can learn a great deal from Plato and Aristotle. They do, however, make a critical distinction between Plato and Platonism. You reject that distinction. But rather than stating that and moving on you compulsively and irrationally keep coming back to proclaim the truth of your hermetic Christian Neoplatonism.

You reject that distinction. But rather than stating that and moving on you compulsively and irrationally keep coming back to proclaim the truth of your hermetic Christian Neoplatonism. — Fooloso4

I'm sorry to have to say this but it sounds like you have some psychological issues there.

You keep talking about "putting the pieces together", but you forget to show by what logical argumentation putting the pieces together leads to atheism.

And no, preventing poets or anyone else from saying things that place the Gods in a bad light does not constitute "banning the Gods" by any stretch of the imagination.

This is the opposite of what the authors I read do. They argue that we can learn a great deal from Plato and Aristotle. — Fooloso4

Well, I disagree. I don't think that atheism amounts to "a great deal" at all. It may do to you, but not to others. All the more so when there is no evidence to support it.

And, according to you, there is "nothing to prove" and you can't prove or say anything anyway because "Plato says nothing and Socrates knows nothing". And the "author is hiding it", but "it's all there", and "only you can see it". But what "it" is no one knows. Apparently, not even yourself.

So, yeah, I think you're definitely on the right track. Or perhaps not ....

In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms and, as the ultimate cause, the Good. And yet many even today do not see this for what it is. — Fooloso4

As Olivier suggests, he may have been set up for political reasons — Apollodorus

We don't have the act of accusation and don't know precisely what the charges were. My point was that politics and religion were intertwined in many complex ways, including in this case.

Socrates' teaching was subversive. He had a certain contempt for democracy, tied with contempt for the average folk and for unexamined opinions. Some of the most prominent Thirty Tyrants who tried to topple democracy in 404 BCE were his former students. Plato belonged right in the middle of this aristocratic milieu. They didn't think the people had a clue.

When Socrates is accused of perverting the youth, I surmise that's what it's about. They don't want him to train yet another generation of kids who would start to doubt the wisdom of their fathers and make not-so-funny revolutions.

In the Republic he banishes the gods from the just city and replaces them with Forms and, as the ultimate cause, the Good. — Fooloso4

As we discussed before, there is very little room for religion in the Republic: no priesthood, no oracles, no temples.

You don't need advice from me, but I think you are losing your time with Apo. The guy is not smart enough nor intellectually honest enough, period. I for one keep my responses to him to the bare minimum, in hope that he might understand such simple statements.

From what I can see, you are claiming that Plato was an atheist and his writings teach atheism.

You are also saying that Plato uses secret language to conceal his atheism.

In support of your theory, you cite Clement of Alexandria and Ibn Sina who, apparently, believed that Plato and/or the Greeks in general, concealed secrets in their writings.

You are claiming that this proves that Plato was a covert atheist.

The first problem with this is that, when carried to its logical conclusion, your theory becomes an extraordinary conspiracy theory according to which Plato and his followers from Aristotle to the Church Fathers and the Christian and Islamic philosophers and mystics were all secret believers in atheism.

What I am saying in response to this is that anyone with even the most basic understanding of philosophy and logic, would ask two simple questions:

1. What do those authors mean by “secrets”?
2. Why should “secrets” mean “atheism”?

“Secrets” could mean a number of things, e.g., knowledge unknown to the general public, allegorical passages referring to metaphysical realities, etc.

There is no evidence to suggest that Clement or Ibn Sina were atheists, and even if they were atheists, this doesn’t prove that Plato was an atheist. It may perfectly well be that they chose to read Plato in an atheist sense. But there is zero evidence of that.

So, this takes us back to the dialogues. These are some of your arguments:

1. Socrates says “one must, so to speak, chant such things to oneself” (Phaedo 114d).
2. Plato bans the Gods from the ideal city discussed in the Republic.

1. In fact, “chanting to oneself” means that Socrates wants his friends to overcome their grief and fear of death with the help of his account of life after death. No more and no less than that.

2. As already stated, banning the poets’ and artists’ irreverent representations of the Gods does not equal banning the Gods.

As to the Good, I think the matter is very clear. The Good is a meta-principle that explains the function of other, subordinate principles as part of a harmonious whole, i.e., how they all fit together to form a functioning, ordered system.

Allan Silverman – Some Ways of Being in Plato

1. I have already explained how Plato's “Forms” play the role of “patterns” (paradeigmata) whereby consciousness organizes itself to generate determinate cognition.

2. The Good explains how the Forms and all other things fit together to form a unified, harmonious reality.

3. The dialogue says very clearly that the Good is “superior to and beyond being” (509b), i.e., a form of Transcendent Reality that contains all things:

“The Sun, I presume you will say, not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture though it is not itself generation.” “Of course not.” “In like manner, then, you are to say that the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the Good their being known, but their very existence and essence is derived to them from it, though the Good itself is not essence but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power.”

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0168%3Abook%3D6%3Asection%3D509b

Ergo, monistic idealism, not atheism.

Still at it I see!

My point was that politics and religion were intertwined in many complex ways, including in this case. — Olivier5

Yes, the gods of the city. There was nothing like the modern separation of Church and State. Civic piety and religious piety were separate.

Socrates' teaching was subversive. — Olivier5

It was, but it was tolerated, at least until Anytus acted against him.

They don't want him to train yet another generation of kids who would start to doubt the wisdom of their fathers and make not-so-funny revolutions. — Olivier5

Aristophanes was a comic poet but he made a serious point, a point that Plato dealt with often - philosophy and sophistry are in many ways indistinguishable. The skills of reasoning and arguing learned can be used for different purposes.

You don't need advice from me, but I think you are losing your time with Apo. The guy is not smart enough nor intellectually honest enough, period. I for one keep my responses to him to the bare minimum, in hope that he might understand such simple statements. — Olivier5

I have reached the same conclusion.

From what I can see — Apollodorus

The problem is, you are incapable of seeing beyond the narrow confines of your own mind and its single track beliefs.

Socrates' teaching was subversive.
— Olivier5

It was, but it was tolerated, — Fooloso4

For a long time it was. Democracy itself implies freedom of thought and expression, so democrats are bound to tolerate critiques of democracy. But this tolerance reached its limit at some point. I believe that the episode of the Thirty Tyrants was key: many democrats would have been concerned that something like this could happen again if Socrates and others were allowed to teach another generation.

... many democrats would have been concerned that something like this could happen again if Socrates and others were allowed to teach another generation. — Olivier5

Right, and this is a major reason why those, like Plato who wrote books that anyone could see, as opposed to private conversation, had to hide their subversive teachings in plain sight.

This was not just a problem in ancient Athens. Descartes took his motto from Ovid:

He who lived well hid himself well.

I should add, it is not simply about personal safety but to protect philosophy.

it is not simply about personal safety but to protect philosophy. — Fooloso4

Yes, there were other reasons than just the political risk of spilling too many beans. Those reasons are expressed by the Socrates figure himself in the dialogues: the written word is like a dead version of the spoken word, etc. Socrates never wrote anything, at least that we know of.

Are you sure your quote is by Ovid via Descartes? Pour vivre heureux, vivons cachés is a well-known French proverb attributed by Wikipedia to Jean-Pierre Claris de Florian in his fable "Le Grillon".

He who lived well hid himself well.

Bene qui latuit, bene vixit, is indeed a verse by Ovid.